Paraphrased for space : President Barack Obama will issue an executive order today expanding the number of people who qualify for overtime pay under federal labor law, according to news reports.

The move would “potentially shift billions of dollars worth of corporate income into the pockets of workers,” the New York Times said on its Web site. The Times quoted Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council saying the effort was part of Obama’s pledge to help workers thrive:
The move is likely to infuriate business interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as congressional Republicans, who have accused the president of abusing his executive authority. In this case, the legal authority derives from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, under current regulations, guarantees extra pay to salaried workers told to work overtime if they earn less than $455 per week.Obama’s order would increase that salary level. The reports did not say by how much.“The proposed new regulations would increase the number of people who qualify for overtime and continue Mr. Obama’s fight against what he says is a crisis of economic inequality in the country.

1) You raise the minimum wage, which is higher than the countries you wish to compete with. ( Duh ! )

2) You expand the overtime rules to compete with countries that do not have overtime.
{double Duh !!}

3) You create tariff and trade imbalances that put you at a trade disadvantage. { triple Duh!!!}

A Trifecta, if you will. Ok…….look. You wish to compete against China, India, Taiwan, and Russia. Do you understand that they do not have minimum wage? Do you understand that they do not have overtime rules? Do you understand that they do not have age restrictions on the working class (children). Do you understand that if the US makes a product for $100 and,with shipping, you can buy the same product for $50…..that no one will buy the $100 product?

Is your Imperial whim so naive that you think the world will follow our lead any longer?

Now….Socioeconomics 101….You wish to compete globally. So, here is what you do?

1) Raise the costs to companies and corporations so that it is more profitable to close in the US and move to other countries that do not have the same costs? ( Unemployment occurs )

2) Place tariffs and restrictions on raw material imports so that other companies close up shop and move to countries that do not have the same issues. ( Unemployment occurs )

3) Institute a health care system that increases costs so much that a company can move overseas or South where the cost of universal health care is absorbed by other cost saving methods?

4) Have a tax system to corporations ( job creators ) that is the highest in the world? And you expect these corporations to stay here? ( Unemployment occurs).

When jobs move out and none move in…….ummmm…….even the new math shows that 10 out and none in equals ZERO…..and this is the economic advice that you are getting from academia, none of which has worked in a real job since birth ( or laboratory cloning ).

Quick research shows……in FY 2010, The United States spent $7.8 Billion for funding the UN. $711 million for funding NATO, $50.4 billion in foreign aid, and another $67 Billion for agricultural improvements outside the US.

Simple math here shows…..that for one year, the US sent 125.9 Billion out of country of tax dollars…..hmmmmm

So a little extrapolation shows that over the 2014-2019…..that equals a savings of $629 Billion…………………………..so………………………………….minding our own business saves this.

Now, the CBO’s latest numbers shows the cost of Obama care (2014-2019) is going to be upwards of $710…….hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..the new taxes that have been implemented plus savings by minding our own business equals to………………………………………..$1.4 TRILLION, with a “T” over that same time period.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm….so………..extrapolating further…………Obamacare paid for and change left over for infrastructure….

One area that is a bright spot in our economy is the chemical industry. There are about $100B in new plants on the drawing board. The reason is cheap natural gas. Chemical plants especially ethylene steam crackers use tremendous quantities of natural gas. It is now cheap to make ethylene in the US than in all countries except Saudi Arabia. There are 6 new ethylene plants now being planned. This industry has been moving offshore for the last twenty years. If we continue to develop our natural energy sources, if we would allow industry to harvest our forests, mine and refine rare earths, reduce our tax and regulations structure, just imagine how much more robust our economy would be. We might actually be able to pay off our debt and absorb the millions of immigrants already here and knocking on our door.

Clinton was tight. “It’s the economy, Stupid.” But Stupid in the WH is deaf.

VH, After reading the bioethics article you posted I’d say these are the most chilling statement of the bioethicists quoted in the article:

Harris writes, “Persons who want to live are wronged by being killed. . . . Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged in this way because death does not deprive them of something they value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed.”

and

Beauchamp, like Harris, asserts that under his theory, “unprotected persons would presumably include fetuses, newborns, psychopaths, severely brain-damaged patients, and various demented patients.”

Beauchamp furthers states:

“If this conclusion is defensible,” he writes, “we will need to rethink our traditional view that these unlucky humans cannot be treated in the ways we treat relevantly similar nonhumans. For example, they might be aggressively used as human research subjects and sources of organs.”

As I argued long ago, if the philosophy of slaughter of the pre-born humans is justified by development, conciseness, cognitive ability, etc., the inescapable consequence will be the slaughter of post-born humans as well.

Some compared her anger towards the CIA to her previous defense of the NSA. Feinstein was one of the NSA’s more vocal supporters following revelations by Edward Snowden that the agency, as part of its counterterrorism efforts, collected telephone call information for virtually every American.

Smelling hypocrisy, Snowden said in that the situation was one “… where an elected official does not care at all that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens are violated by our spies, but suddenly it’s a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them.”

How’s it feel Diane to have your business snooped on by government? I hope they tapped your phones too.

Plainly, You asked why I think that homosexuals will never be a protected class by Federal law. My opinion is that the 1st Amendment forbids the Feds from adding them to the law books, due to certain religious doctrines that consider homosexuality a sin (or whatever religious term they use). Congress can pass NO law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Many will claim that blacks were seen as the same, which was hogwash back then as it is today. Blacks are born blacks, there is no choice involved. It’s not a religion thing, because I know many blacks who are devout Christians (they don’t approve of homosexuality either). Those who follow Islam are evn more open about their anti-homosexual beliefs.

Because being a protected class under law Federal would disallow refusal of service due the being gay, Congress can’t and won’t pass that into law. Just my opinion of course. The recent rulings about the baker and photographer would likely be overturned by SCOTUS, because they are not a protected class, where as religious beliefs are quite protected (even if we disagree).

Hope that helps. To be clear, I wouldn’t deny service to ANYONE if I was in business. That’s bad business. Some folks have very deep religious beliefs that overcomes that, so be it!

True. Plus Congress does pass law that may well be preventing the free exercise of religion. Look at the ACA and the fight going on about religious groups having to provide certain aspects in health insurance.

There will be further assaults on the free exercise of religion in future in all likelihood. Maybe the Left/liberal/progressive/humanists just want to get religious America shut into a small box wherein they can then overturn that aspect of the 1st Amendment? It would be much easier for them if they can put God out of human existence to then remove other individual rights.

I agree. Many religious folks believe this is the work of the Anti-Christ. Many believe that the progressives are following the Nazi playbook. Whatever the case may be, the Bill of Rights seems to be under constant attack.

When Obama addressed that concern about religious freedom, and the mandated birth control rules in the ACA. He made what I believe is a correct assessment. Stop having MOST employees of the churches covered under a legal entity called an LLC or other government legalized corporate structure.

Those who follow Islam are evn [sic] more open about their anti-homosexual beliefs.

Say it with me, again: ＢＵＬＬＳＨＩＴ

[SOME OF] those who follow Islam are evn [sic] more open about their anti-homosexual beliefs. The rest are not bigots and do not give two shits because they are able to ignore (like most Christians and most Jews) the stupid, inane, and irrelevant portions of their holy books.

By the way, (many) Orthodox Jews really hate homosexuals as well. In fact, if memory serves, they tried to pass a law (which didn’t have a prayer given the secular Jewish population) in Israel making homosexuality a capital offense.

Sorry Mathius, but homosexuality is a choice. If it were not a choice, but a biological fact, the population of homosexuals worldwide would be much much larger. Claiming to have found a “gay gene” isn’t much different than the Global Warming whackballs. Just because some people WANT it to exist, they will make up anything needed to invent proof.

There are many sects of both Muslims and Christians, it doesn’t matter if a minority are “homophobes” as you say, it’s their religious belief, protected by the 1st Amendment. I don’t follow which religious sects have these beliefs, but, just because you folks on the Left don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s going to change.

So, with that said, your views about it not being a choice is BULLSHIT 😉

Sorry Mathius, but homosexuality is a choice. If it were not a choice, but a biological fact, the population of homosexuals worldwide would be much much larger

What asinine kind of logic is this?

(A) Assuming homosexuality is genetic, then it’s a mutation. The number of individuals with a given mutation can be very small, or very large. For example Proteus Syndrome (which the Elephant Man had) is so rare, you can probably count the number of cases on one hand. Conversely, white skin is a genetic mutation (from our dark skinned African origins) and there are billions of us.

(B) It seems probably to me that there are a great deal more homosexuals (and bisexuals) than are evident. The stigma and social cost of being “out” are so high that a huge number of people are in the close (yesterday, I mentioned our good friend Larry “Wide Stance” Craig).

(C) Given the stigma, there is almost certainly a percentage who are also in self-denial. That is, they are repressed and force themselves to live or believe that they are not gay. My wife had a friend who told her, by way of coming out, but not really, that “if I were gay – but I’m not – but if I were, you’d be the only person I’d ever tell, and I’d still find a wife and get married and have kids and never tell any of them that I have these feelings.” Think about that kind of mentality – you think he was an isolated incident?

Claiming to have found a “gay gene” isn’t much different than the Global Warming whackballs. Just because some people WANT it to exist, they will make up anything needed to invent proof.

I’m not aware of anyone making this claim. If someone is (I’m sure they’re out there), they’re quacks and deserve to be called out for their quackery. And, I’m sure that legitimate scientists are out there in spades debunking any such nonsense.

That said, you should really be careful in not confusing the idea of “no evidence for” and “evidence again.” That is, just because they haven’t found such a mythical gene, doesn’t constitute anything like “proof” that no such gene might exist.

Neurological genetics is waaaay beyond our reach for something as complicated as sexual preference. The idea that this is one readily identifiable gene is borderline insanity. It’s almost certainly a combination of thousands of separate genes in an interplay we won’t understand for decades.

Sorry Mathius, but homosexuality is a choice.

It’s weird that it’s a “choice” which has occurred throughout recorded history in every civilization, in every country, in every time that we know about. It was around in the time of the old testament. It was around in the time of the new testament. It was around in the time of Rome and ancient Greece and Egypt. It is present in every country, and every city on the planet. Rabidly anti-gay parents still wind up with gay children. Anti-gay parents send their gay children to pray-the-gay away “therapy,” and they still wind up gay.

Why would someone “choose” to be gay in a family that disapproves so strongly? Why would someone “choose” to be gay when doing so means ostracism? Why would someone “choose” to be gay when it could mean the death penalty? Even in America, why would you ever “choose” to live in such a way that half the country thinks you’re an abomination and wants to forbid you from getting married. Why would SO MANY people do this to themselves if it’s not a deep-seeded part of their fundamental makeup?

Why is homosexuality present among chimps, dolphins, dogs, elephants, and more? Did they also “choose” it?

Prior to all the political BS, Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It’s no longer officially considered one on paper, but the APA has never acknowledged that it is not. Read the links, it explains it. The whole Gay rights issue is scam to gain votes for politicians with the big L on their forehead. That is why it is a Democrat funded issue. If it were a Republican funded issue, then you and those who fall for all the Liberal bullshit would call homosexuality a mental disease. Have you not noticed that it’s the Democrats who claim to champion the minorities?

Speak for yourself….oh celibate one….I AM compelled to have sex. Say it with me….Sex is good….and even better at my age. What I used to do all night….takes me all night to do now…BUT…..the quality is better than quantity.

None the less the distinction is fair. There is a difference between the desire for sex and the fact that one is born a certain race. But None the less-I do not believe the answer really addresses Matt’s point. Which is are people born with the desire for a particular gender when it comes to sex or is it learned or chosen by circumstances.

If it were nothing but a genetic mutation then how do we explain Bi-sexuals or Homosexuals who only “experiment” then go “Hetero”, etc, etc.

I suppose we can argue they are all the result of some genetic makeup but here is the Catch 22 for the Lefties.

ALL our behaviors can be tied to Genetics. Thus we are all INDIVIDUALS of distinct genetic character…………so now what? Are we ALL a protected class due to discrimination against those who are obnoxiously LEFT WING?? Or RIGHT WING??

Where does the projection of Liberties and Rights stop when it comes to “invisible” characteristics which govern “behavior” rather than our “appearance” or our “race”??

Thanks, V! I nominate you to be the official SUFA moderator to call people out when they miss the point.

JAC,

If it were nothing but a genetic mutation then how do we explain Bi-sexuals or Homosexuals who only “experiment” then go “Hetero”, etc, etc.

Why do you assume genetic mutations are 100% or 0% “On” or “Off”? Where is that precedented in nature? Blond hair color is a genetic mutation – yet you can range from platinum blond all the way to pitch black and every single shade in between. Same with height: you can be a midget or you can be a giant and every single shade in between. Same with intelligence: you can be a moron or you can be a genius and every single shade in between.

Yet, for some reason, when it comes to something as complicated as sexual preference, you assume that it must be 100% or 0% – why? What logic supports this conclusion?

I’ll just wait until your generation dies off and we can all move along with a slightly less bigoted society.

Nobody is being bigoted at all. I’ll speak for myself, I won’t fall for the left Wing lies that are not based on facts, just conjecture. Homosexuality is NOT genetic and is not passed from generation to generation, even when the opportunity exists that it might. It’s not genetic, because identical twins, with identical genes, don’t follow that model either.

I have not seen one person say it’s OK to be biased against gays. It has been said that it’s a religious Right, which is protected. But no, we are being bigoted in any way.

ALL our behaviors can be tied to Genetics. Thus we are all INDIVIDUALS of distinct genetic character…………so now what?

All behaviors DO, I agree, have at least some tie to genetics. That is, we’re human and variable and, if you’re willing to stretch far enough, you can find a genetic link for any behavior whatsoever. There is, of course, a nature vs nurture debate, but even the most nurtured behaviors are still acting on a brain designed according to a genetic blueprint, so the link is there regardless. In this I am in full agreement.

Are we ALL a protected class due to discrimination against those who are obnoxiously LEFT WING?? Or RIGHT WING??

Now, here, finally, you approach making a decent point. It’s waaay off topic from the question of whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but let’s address it anyway, shall we?

We, as a society, have already determined that you are not permitted to discriminate against people based on color or gender. The reason is that we, as a society, have determined that these are not good grounds for discrimination – that is, they don’t mean anything to the situation at hand. So, to say that “I won’t hire him because he’s black” is stupid because his being black is irrelevant to his ability to do his job. Similarly, to say “I won’t hire him because he’s gay” is stupid because being gay is irrelevant to his ability to do his job.

But, since people insisted on judging people this way, we passed laws to stop them from acting on an unfair and stupid bias.

I think it’s illustrative to point out a case where discrimination IS permitted. You aren’t allowed to discriminate based on attractiveness. That is, you can’t refuse to hire a secretary because she’s ugly. People do – they pretend it’s for other reasons, and you can’t prove otherwise, but it is against the rules. HOWEVER, if you are hiring for a position as, say, a fashion model, you absolutely can discriminate based on looks. Why? Because in the first case, there is no rational grounds for discriminating – it’s unfair. In the second case, it makes perfect sense that you don’t want to hire an ugly model – it’s reasonable.

So are all traits protected on the grounds that they’re genetic? Yes and no. I would say that any traits which are irrelevant to the capacity in which the discrimination occurs should be protected in that instance, conversely any traits relevant to the capacity in which they are being discriminated against should not be protected in that instance – how you implement this, exactly, is a different question entirely. This is merely the intellectual framework for answering when is it and when isn’t it ok to discriminate. Some examples..

Gender:
Should you be able to tell a woman you won’t hire her just because she’s a woman? No.
Should you be able to tell a man you won’t hire him as a councilor for abused women? Yes.

Religion:
Should you be able to refuse to hire a Christian for a job at the Gap? No.
Should you be able to refuse to hire an atheist for a job as your parish priest? Yes.

Handicapped:
Should you be able to tell someone in a wheelchair that he can’t work as an accountant? No.
Should you be able to refuse to hire him as a dock worker unloading cargo? Yes.

Race:
Should you be able to refuse to hire someone as a clerk because he’s black? No.
Should you be able to only consider white actors for the role of George Washington in your upcoming movie? Yes.

Which leads us to sexuality:
So should you be able to tell a gay man he can’t buy your cake? No.
Should you be able to tell a gay man that you won’t hire him as a masseuse for your male clients? Maybe. (I had to stretch for this one, but you get the point)

Ask a Muslim about this. Not the Westernized ones, but the devout ones and then when a woman is denied, not a damn thing can be done.

(A) Knock it off. Seriously. We’ve been over this.

(B) Islam is not the arbiter of what is and is not right for American society.

(C) Sharia law grants more rights to women than Abrahamic law. Don’t confuse Saudi Arabia’s version of Sharia law with what the law actually is – it is a radical fundamentalist interpretation with only the looses basis in the scriptures. Sharia law sets up a two system government – one secular, one religious – the religious one only applies to Muslims. The secular system applies to everyone with laws such as “don’t steal” and “don’t kill.” The religious one – which, again, applies only to Muslims – has requirements such as “keep halal (kosher).” Penalties under the religious law are 100% optional, but refusing to comply means you are excommunicated from Islam – thus under a “real” sharia system, you could receive a death sentence and simply walk away (but accept that you’re going to Jahannam (hell)) or you could allow the sentence to be carried out and be expunged of your crime (and go to Jannah (heaven/paradise)).

Koran: “And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women.”

Now, you can easily find support for a dissenting view (that women are chattel, et cetera) in the Koran. But I can find this also in your holy books, too. So stop acting like Islam is so evil and your religion is so high minded.

Now, explain to me how this has any relevance whatsoever to what we were talking about, or do I have to go get V.H. to hold your feet to the fire?

Not the Westernized ones, but the devout ones

You sound like a dunce when you talk about Islam. Westernized or not is cultural. Devout is a measure of adherence or orthodoxy. There are devout westernized Muslims. There are reformed non-westernized Muslims.

The “Obama has deported more illegals that BUSH” meme continues to be strong among the Obama apologists and rationalizers.

I am guessing they will now INCREASE the yelling in order to drown out the truth. How long before John Stewart does a skit on the LYING White House.

“Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

“Correct,” Mr. Johnson confirmed.

ROTFLMAO………………….

Oh, and a shout out to the Colonel who told us of this two years ago, only to be ridiculed by Todd and others.

That list of “accomplishments” posted on white house dot gov is looking like the index to a comedic novel.

Our US rights are not applicable to those outside of our country. Regardless of the innumerable court ruling on illegals or the new term, aspiring citizens. The laws and EO’s and court rulings are so twisting the “LAW” out of shape they are meaningless. They operated outside the law, are not citizens or naturalized citizens. They should be treated like anyone who cuts in line at the DMV. You’ll be sent to the end of the line by an official but may be harmed by those who DID follow the process and waited patiently for their turn. If I go to another country I have to live under their laws not ours. My US RIGHTS are not protected elsewhere.

It has been made factual knowledge that the Democrat choice in the recent Florida election “OUTSPENT” the Republican 3 to 1. Knowing this, here’s an Email that Liberal democrat supporters are getting:

Friend —

What happened last night in Florida was really scary.

Republican super PACs and outside groups rode to the rescue of a straight-up corporate lobbyist — spending $5 million to tear down his Democratic opponent.

Five million dollars in outside spending — from groups funded by anonymous donors in many cases — in just one congressional district. Now multiply that by the number of races we need to win to take back the House, then add tens of millions of dollars in states like Kentucky, Georgia, or Texas, where we have a chance to pick up Senate seats and governor’s mansions.

If that doesn’t scare you, it should. But the good news is that you can do something about it right now. Chip in $3 or more to make sure Democrats have the resources to fight back against right-wing special interests.

In a district that Republicans have held for almost six decades, we nearly pulled off an incredible upset thanks to grassroots support from Democrats like you — but we fell short for one reason: We got outspent in a Republican district. And call me old fashioned, but I think people, and not special interests, should decide elections.

And the math on these midterm elections is pretty simple: The more people vote, the more races Democrats will win.

But if we can’t break through all the noise from the special interest attack ads, taking back the House is off the table — and everything we want to do in President Obama’s last two years in office is in jeopardy.

Make sure we have what we need to elect Democrats in November. Pitch in $3 or more now:

Liars know they are speaking untruths, you simply fall for the mistruths and claim it is true, not knowing the difference. When it is shown to be a mistruth, you somehow cling to the Liberal mistruth, so, YOU TELL ME 😉

Unbelievable-all the time, money, a government shut down, arguments over bills and even a Supreme Court case this man -Now -is stopping the mandate until he is out of office. Something I’m not even sure he has the right to do.

Heads up: This is the biggest news story of the week, yet it’s getting relatively little play. Team O inched closer to taking this step back in December, when they created a broad “hardship” exemption to the individual mandate tax for anyone whose plan had been cancelled under Obamacare and found the new rates unaffordable. Here’s what we wrote at the time:

The administration is conceding that Obamacare itself, and specifically its high costs, is a “hardship” for millions. With that in mind, how can they justify not extending the same waiver to all uninsured people? Or all Americans, for that matter? Yes, people who’ve been dumped from their existing coverage are the immediate victims of Obamacare’s most visible (for now) broken promise — but if the administration is acknowledging that Obamacare’s supposedly affordable coverage really isn’t as advertised, that’s not a problem that’s unique to the newly uninsured. It applies to everybody affected by the law.

It was a question of fairness: How could the White House grant these broad and essentially verification-free waivers to one group of uninsured Americans, but not another? The fairness issue reared its head again when the administration announced its second employer mandate delay last month. Big businesses get a pass on a punitive mandate that hurts them, but small businesses, individuals and families aren’t spared? Now we have our answers. In a very quiet regulatory shift issued just last week, the individual mandate tax “hardship” exemption was expanded to include pretty much anyone willing to “attest” that they’ve experienced some sort of trouble obtaining insurance. Behold, the hated individual mandate tax dying a quiet death in a stack of unheralded regulations (via the WSJ):

In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare’s wave of policy terminations qualified as a “hardship” that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts. But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.” This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

That’s exactly right. This change could easily apply to the entire uninsured population — the vast majority of whom haven’t signed up for Obamacare coverage, with most citing lack of affordability as the top reason. The White House recognizes that dispatching the president to practically beg people to think about canceling their cable or cell phones in order to pay for his law’s “affordable” care isn’t politically sustainable. Nor is the idea of millions of long-term uninsured Americans remaining without coverage, but getting slapped with resulting fines for the first time. So the mandate tax has, in effect, been regulated out of existence until 2016. Allahpundit declares the mandate tax “dead,” slayed at the hands of a president who is systematically and single-handedly uprooting his own signature accomplishment:

The IRS was never going to enforce the mandate strictly this year, but now they don’t have to enforce it at all. Anyone who’s declined to buy insurance by April 1st can simply claim hardship and that’s that. This makes three major rule changes to the core components of ObamaCare in the past month alone: On February 10th, the White House delayed the employer mandate for small businesses until 2016, and then, 10 days ago, it extended for two more years the rule allowing insurers to un-cancel plans for consumers who want their old, cheaper coverage back. Little did we know until now that, on the same day, they also all but suspended the individual mandate until 2016. And like Levin says, it’s unlikely that they’ll ever bring it back. Why would the next president, eager to begin his/her term on a strong note, want to reinstate a harsh financial penalty for noncompliance with O-Care when the guy who signed the law was unwilling to? The mandate is dead. Obama’s repealing ObamaCare himself, piece by piece.

So why was this enormous change made with zero fanfare? Two reasons: First, the White House is already far behind its projected pace on enrollments. They’ve decided against trumpeting a huge disincentive to signing up in the midst of their enrollment period’s home stretch. Second, this is all hugely embarrassing to the president. This mandate tax is the tent pole of this whole enterprise. It is what allowed the law to narrowly survive the Supreme Court’s scrutiny. Obama has also repeatedly threatened to veto Republican efforts to delay the mandate tax through the legislative process. He did so most recently last week. Democrats allowed the government to shut down last fall when the GOP’s central “ask” was to do…exactly what Obama has now unilaterally done on his own. Once the March 31 deadline passes, the White House will need to determine whether or not to publicize its expansive, all-inclusive “hardship waiver.” (Again, they’re admitting that the hardship is Obamacare itself). This delay was so nonchalant that it hardly generated any attention at all until the Journal picked up on it earlier in the week. Through opacity, the White House spared itself another horrible news cycle. But if people don’t hear about these new, anything-goes waivers, anger over the unfair mandate tax could continue to simmer and hurt Democrats. Decisions, decisions. In any case, Obamacare — as it was originally envisioned and passed — is gone. Think about that. It’s extraordinary.

This whole Ocare thing has just been bizarre. No Hollywood screen writer could have written this story and sold it. If anyone would have predicted this scenario three years ago we would have been laughed off SUFA.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not,” she said.

That would be seven years after Jamestown, Virginia became America’s first permanent English settlement.

Yes, My point exactly. Knowing about the inner workings of handguns, both revolvers and semi-auto’s, built in the last 60 years or so, without pressure on the trigger, the gun can’t fire. That don’t mean that it wasn’t a malfunction, but, through my experience, malfunctions usually come after heavy use, if then. It’s common for pistols to go off when dropped, that is usually a blatant mistruth because few people understand the secondary, and in many cases, third safety devices.

The old “it went off when I dropped it” excuse was used quite often for accidental discharges in the military, only to be proven false in 99.9999% of cases 🙂

“Well there was a party once, not far from here, which was composed of ladies and gentlemen. A fine table was set and the people were greatly enjoying themselves. Among the crowd was one of those men who had audacity — was quick-witted, cheeky and self-possessed — never off his guard on any occasion. After the men and women had enjoyed themselves by dancing, promenading, flirting, etc., they were told that the table was set. The man of audacity — quick-witted, self-possessed and equal to all occasions — was put at the head of the table to carve the turkeys, chickens and pigs. The men and women surrounded the table, and the audacious man being chosen carver whetted his great carving knife with the steel and got down to business & commenced carving the turkey, but he expended too much force & let a fart — a loud fart so that all the people heard it distinctly. As a matter of course it shocked all terribly. A deep silence reigned. However the audacious man was cool and entirely self-possessed; he was curiously and keenly watched by those who knew him well, they suspecting that he would recover in the end and acquit himself with glory. The man, with a kind of sublime audacity, pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, put his coat deliberately on a chair, spat on his hands, took his position at the head of the table, picked up the carving knife and whetted it again, never cracking a smile nor moving a muscle of his face. It now became a wonder in the minds of all the men and women how the fellow was to get out of his dilemma. He squared himself and said loudly & distinctly: “Now, by God, I’ll see if I can’t cut up this turkey without farting.”

That’s why, “Quality… not Koch” militants recently marched in front of the “soon-to-be-built” David H. Koch Center location. The complainers included such notables as the New York State Nurses’ Association (NYSNA), who apparently are angered because, by 2018, Koch’s donation will help create new nursing jobs. Also in attendance were the NAACP New York State Conference and SEIU Local 1199, as well as guitar-playing people in red jackets who’ll march for anything if it gets them a free pancake breakfast.

In 2012, in the midst of layoffs at non-profit Washington Hospital Center, ardent abortion supporter/former President Bill Clinton received a $225,000 speaking fee. Remarkably, Bill Clinton’s insensitivity toward laid-off hospital workers failed to rouse even one concerned lesbian to host a “Speak out for Quality Care, Not Clinton Care” street march. But let a conservative donate $100 million to a hospital, and rampant ire is the response from the “Abortion on Demand without Apology” crowd.

On International Women’s Day protesters were annoyed because the “oil tycoon” contributing the money has an anti-abortion conviction – without apology – that is contrary to liberal ideology, which includes the unfettered right to abortion without apology!

So, evidently a huge donation to supplement jobs and provide a spanking-new health pavilion that is poised to enhance healthcare in New York City is unwelcome if the philanthropist doing the donating does not support the Revolutionary Communist Party’s stance that abortion should be available to anyone, anytime.

Adding to that irritation, the “soon-to-be-built” New York-Presbyterian Hospital pavilion will be located on the wealthy Upper East Side, where Mayor Bill ‘Tale of Two Cities’ de Blasio would likely agree that, as punishment for success, residents should be left to die in snowdrifts.

So there you have it – liberal logic in action: protest for a cause and feign concern for the oppressed, then turn around and oppress the ones for whom you were feigning concern.

According to the Revolutionary Communist Party, the way to address male oppression of women is to kill unborn women. For the “Quality Care, not Koch Care” activists, it means biting the hand that provides healthcare and jobs just because on Election Day that hand pulls the Republican lever.

“Of course, it is not quite accurate to say that the indigenous population gave of themselves and their land for that noble purpose. Rather, they were slaughtered, decimated, and dispersed in the course of one of the greatest exercises in genocide in human history. Current estimates suggest that there may have been about 80 million Native Americans in Latin America when Columbus “discovered” the continent —as we say—and about 12 to 15 million more north of the Rio Grande. By 1650, about 95 percent of the population of Latin America had been wiped out, and by the time the continental borders of the United States had been established, some 200,000 were left of the indigenous population. In short, mass genocide, on a colossal scale, which we celebrate each October when we honor Columbus—a notable mass
murderer himself—on Columbus Day.”

By 1650, about 95 percent of the population of Latin America had been wiped out, and by the time the continental borders of the United States had been established, some 200,000 were left of the indigenous population. In short, mass genocide, on a colossal scale

I thought you would ask. Basically, homosexuality didn’t exist in my youth. As a young boy, getting a hold of Dad’s Playboy was always a exciting thing. Archie Bunker was the only thing I can remember when it came to the subject, referring to Fags on TV. I don’t recall anyone in my graduating class turning out gay. The subject wasn’t covered in any detail in health class either, and that was before AIDS. Sex education was about how babies were made, STD’s and not getting girls pregnant before you were married. The good old days 🙂

My first run in with a possible homosexual was in basic training when some SSgt was getting a little to close to one of my fellow Airmen during a work detail. The SSGT was already in trouble for that sort of thing and this incident sent him to prison for 10 years.

In short, without homosexuality being prevalent, it was not a conscience issue that needed thinking, so, I’m a normal heterosexual male that was not influenced by abnormal outside factors. Hence, a subconscience decision. 😉

Homosexuality was as rampant then as it is today and as it will be tomorrow. The real telling detail about your “you-know-what-I-mean” statement was that it was repressed. It was so taboo and hated and reviled and secret that it wasn’t even a part of the world you Normals lived in.

Must have been hell for the homosexuals, knowing that “getting too close” to another man could land you in prison (there may have been other factors in your story, but it was certainly a crime in a lot of states at the time). But they’re abnormal – and the mere fact of their existence is so subversive that it causes innocent children to subconsciously choose to be faggots, I think it’s best for everyone if they’d all just go back in the closet where they belong.

You know that I meant that homosexuals were not a prevalent part of society, not that they didn’t exist. I have no illusion of that. NO, it was not a crime to be gay, it was a crime to molest others, it was also a crime to commit sodomy, right up there with being a pedaphile. But, like I said, it was a non-issue in my growing years. When I got older, we were reminded that after one turns 18, hands off the teens below you too!

None of this means that I discriminate against gays, I don’t at all, but like my youth, they aren’t a prevalent part of this community. I don’t care if they get married or not, it doesn’t effect me. Why should I care?

Those who engage in other forms of unnatural sex exist as well. Pedaphiles come to mind who have active organizations and want their Rights too! What say you Papa?

it was also a crime to commit sodomy, right up there with being a pedaphile.

It was a felony for two concening individuals of the same gender to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home.

Yup nothing wrong with that for us SUFA lovers of freedom and liberty!

But, like I said, it was a non-issue in my growing years

Right – because they were in the closet like good second class citizens – not uppity like todays faggots.

they aren’t a prevalent part of this community

They might beg to differ.

Those who engage in other forms of unnatural sex exist as well.

Other forms of unnatural sex? Tell me what’s unnatural about what they’re doing? I think, definitely, if it’s being done by animals all over the animal kingdom, it has to be “natural.”

Pedaphiles come to mind who have active organizations and want their Rights too! What say you Papa?

I knew you’d bring up this trope sooner or later. Pedophilia involves sex with a minor WHO CANNOT CONSENT. That is akin to RAPE.

These are apples and oranges. I’m talking about two people who love each other trying to get married and be treated as equal citizens and not be discriminated against bacsed on who they love, and you’re comparing it to the rape of children.

Mathius, you can stick to the Left Wing talking points all you want, I don’t care. Why can’t minors consent? Apparently minors can decide their gay but can’t consent to sex? It can’t go both ways because it’s all about SEX! Staggering the crap people come up with. I guess when the neighbors dog humps my leg (it’s a she) she’s into reverse beastiality as well?

I guess I should simply ask, what scientific evidence exists that proves that gays are born that way?

The preponderance of evident and a complete dearth of evidence to the contrary.

(A) All times and all cultures.
(B) Exists even amongst people who are raised anti-gay
(C) Exists even in cultures which are hostile to homosexuals
(D) Sliding scale of variability (similar to sliding scale of height / skin tone / etc) – in fact, if it were a 1 or a 0 only, that might be weird.
(E) ZERO evidence to suggest a choice
(F) People don’t seem to be able to “un-choose” to be gay
(G) Extensive prevalence in nature.
(H) No gene has been found yet (likely there are many interconnected genes), but this does not constitute evidence against

The Fed is the most influential upon the IMF, not the other way around. The Fed influences government policy – government policy does not truly influence Fed policy (unless the Fed agrees with that policy).

“It matters not who controls the government, it matters who controls the money”

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Handicap = physical trait and can be a mental disease or disorder affecting “behavior”.

Homosexual sex = behavior.

The issue of making a cake or taking photographs involves the difference between “being forced to participate” vs that of selling products offered to the general public. Simply replace “painting” for cake or photographs.

Now as for your belief in what we should be “allowed” to do respecting discrimination.

You demand we have no right to discriminate against anyone who wishes to walk into this country to hang out or work.

Yet you claim the right to discriminate and even persecute those who do NOT want to participate in relationships with those they don’t care for.

So the alien has the right to impose himself upon my community, but I have no right to enforce my values upon him or anyone else.

When you start arguing about what we should or should not be allowed to do, there is only ONE institution that can enforce your “beliefs”. At that point you are FORCING YOUR beliefs upon me.

Now on a larger but relevant issue. The essence of your argument is that a Society has no “right” to enforce accepted MORAL behavior or conduct among its members. After all, the opposition to homosexuality is primarily one of moral principle.

Take note of the “moral” principles being enforced upon the rest of us when it comes to “welfare” and “health care”.

I saw you post above, all that your points lead to is that gay’s exist and don’t constitute scientific evidence.

(A) All times and all cultures.
(B) Exists even amongst people who are raised anti-gay
(C) Exists even in cultures which are hostile to homosexuals
(D) Sliding scale of variability (similar to sliding scale of height / skin tone / etc) – in fact, if it were a 1 or a 0 only, that might be weird.
(E) ZERO evidence to suggest a choice
(F) People don’t seem to be able to “un-choose” to be gay
(G) Extensive prevalence in nature.
(H) No gene has been found yet (likely there are many interconnected genes), but this does not constitute evidence against

Just change gay for pedaphile and you have the same thing, does that mean pedaphiles are born that way too?

That said, again, it’s disingenuous to compare the two as the manifestations are very starkly different. One is the desire relations with another consenting adult – the other is the desire for relations with someone who CANNOT consent and is, therefore, rape.

I feel badly for people who suffer from that affliction – fate has played a cruel trick on them, making them attracted to people who cannot consent – thus their sexual urges, if fulfilled, would be terribly evil. It’s sad for them, and I think the ones who fight against this nature (and win) deserve recognition and respect. It is a mental illness be considered as such.

Homosexuality is not in the same category (of mental illness) because it IS NOT EVIL, produces no harm to the self or to the partner. In short, while it is mental, there is no “illness” aspect. It is like being left handed – sure it’s not the “norm,” but there’s no “illness.” Just being different.

That said, again, it’s disingenuous to compare the two as the manifestations are very starkly different.

Not at all Mathius, One choses to be in love with a member of same sex, the other choses to be in love with a child (which may be same sex). They are two equal manifestations, one choosing to love another. You say this is normal and can’t be helped, then want to make some absurd differentiation of the two. If one is born gay and can only love someone of the same sex, then it is equally true that pedaphiles are born that way and can only love a child. You can’t have it both ways my friend.

But, As I have said, these are choices, and if you claim they are not, not they are mental afflictions.

It seems to me that first one must define what “born x, y or z” means in real terms.

By “born gay” I assume that they are born with some “predisposition” to like, try or practice homosexual behavior. As opposed to those born with a “predisposition” to only like, try, practice heterosexual behavior.

So, one would assume that there would be a male chromosome, a female chromosome and a gay chromosome, which, the latter does not exist despite all the scientific studies to try to find one. What do you say to that Sir Mathius? 🙂

“Gay” isn’t a third gender with it’s own X, Y, and Q chromosomes. What we’re talking about is the human brain, which is made up of cells which are run by DNA which is contained on chromosomes which contain about 100,000 genes.

The Punnett Squares you might have learned about are great for single-gene traits, but they’re oversimplified for something as complicated as this. Hell, even eye color is controlled by “at least” two genes. And that’s just a question of pigmentation in an area smaller than the size of dime.

The brain is MASSIVELY more complicated. Several, several orders of magnitude more complicated. It is so involved, there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of genes at play. And they’re all interacting in ways we don’t have even the beginning of the slightest inkling of how to understand.

The genes driving your genetic predisposition toward sexual orientation are, almost certainly, in the dozens if not hundreds. No one has a clue how to model that out. That’s why it’s a THEORY instead of a fact, but it’s a pretty solid theory nonetheless. Just because we can’t point and say “HERE IT IS!” doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Please stop using “other species” as some justification or argument for Humans.

WE are NOT other species. The biggest difference between us and them is our use of CHOICE in decision making.

I have always found the argument revealing of the attitude of many who use it. Basically we are nothing different than other animals. Which of course means we can act like ANIMALS since we are no different. Concepts of morality, ethics, normative behaviors, philosophy, etc be damned.

As we reported yesterday, Crimea is last week’s story. Now it is all about east Ukraine. In that vein, moments ago John Kerry’s latest stand up comedy routine hit the tape which contained, besides the usual laugh lines, this particular pearl:

New thought after seeing some of the local freaks on the street after lunch. To be cross filed in the “Hijacking of our language” folder.

WHO decided that the term “Social Conservative” would be used to describe those opposing abortion or homosexuals being “married”??

The phrase/term is not consistent with the people it is describing. There is nothing “social” about abortion or what people are doing in their own bedroom.

The term “social” or “socially acceptable” has always meant those PUBLIC behaviors that are acceptable or at least “not offensive”.

So I must be a Social Conservative because I most certainly do believe in those old traditional, and thus “conservative”, values of good manners, polite behavior and appropriate attire when engaging in “social” activities. Like having lunch out with my daughter at a pretty nice restaurant.

In fact, it seems to me that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are Social Conservatives, if we use the description properly.

Which means that we Radical Right Wing Liberals are Social Conservatives as well.

So, to you, identical twins that have a “cancer gene”, where one gets it and the other doesn’t is equally “odd” to you, too – and in your peculiar understanding of genetics, means that such a cancer gene does not exist.

Cool, Big Question. Who conducted the study and who funded it? I know this may not seem important to you, but with the Golabal Warming fraud ongoing, I have zero faith in “news” articles claiming science as fact. Yes, I have been ruined by Al Gore and question everything that the Left Wing (and much from the Right) champions. Sorry! 😉

G- While NO Gay Gene has been found, your claim that prior studies are “frauds” it not exactly correct either. As with all SCIENCE, except climate science, the field of knowledge is “evolving” as we speak.

Actually, some of the important current stuff was discussed in the article. At least the markers you are using in your argument. I cited it because of the good “complete” discussion of genetics and what some of these could mean or not mean.

The article explains “switches” for Gman and Mathius to consider. And that “A” gene was never the hypothesis. That concept was probably invented for political purposes or to deal with stupid journalists who couldn’t explain the complexity in less than 60 seconds.

There is an very interesting hypothesis presented regarding what the “genetic marker” might mean in terms of “manifested behavior”. One is that the same marker which increased the odds of homosexual behavior in men may also be tied to higher fertility rates when present in women.

Also of note, this research has applications in the research on Autism. The theory is moving from distinct “genes” to markers or “switches” that make certain gene groups function in certain ways.

Just finished your reference. It has nothing new from the one I cited. Except that the study discussed in mine as “beginning” has now been completed. But the latest study just puts more confidence in the findings already reached.